Thanks for the summary, Jim. I think the open issues for ARM are not blockers for promoting the provider. Many of them are pretty straightforward to fix, and I will be able to help with them next week.
I also agree that we should release a new version soon, so people can start using newer Guava versions. There is no problem if this means releasing it before the ARM issue list is complete. We can release a new bugfix version as soon as there is a patch set we want to release. It is only about having someone volunteer to take the time to release it, and I will, if needed :) Let's see how long it takes to fix the ARM issues, and work on the release (+ bugfix release, if needed). I. On 12 September 2017 at 05:51, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > I cannot speak to the specific issues you cited, but we should minimize > new development if we hope to release soon. From my perspective, we > could fix any remaining Guava issues then cut 2.1.0, leaving other > issues for 2.1.1. > > We should use JIRA to track any blocking issues via the following query > which lists 2.1.0 targets: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+JCLOUDS+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+2.1.0+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC > > I removed the target from 30 issues with 13 remaining. Someone more > knowledgeable about compute should do a second pass. > > We also have a large number of issues with assignees that are not likely > active: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/JCLOUDS/summary/statistics > > We should unassign these to avoid licking the cookie and discouraging > other contributors. > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Jim Spring wrote: >> Andrea, Ignasi - >> >> Looking at the list, here are my thoughts for this release: >> >> >> To include (if possible): >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1331 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1304 / >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1282 >> - see comment in Jira, seem to be the same and it seems like Vikas has a PR >> adding support >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1291 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1230 >> - whatever incremental improvements there are / can be done >> >> >> TBD (depending on scope): >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1305 >> - currently there is work going on here, but I don’t know the overall time >> frame. I plan on circling back to get feasibility on such >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1301 >> - I haven’t run into this myself, don’t know the scope. Crashes are bad, >> see m’kay. >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1330 >> - It looks like there is some work here, but behavior should be consistent >> with other Providers. Deleting a VM on Azure won’t delete the network; >> deleting the resource group will. >> >> >> Not to include due to scope of change/generalization: >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1294 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1296 >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1298 >> - Adding async support as well as generalized retry likely impact code >> outside of azure-arm provider. Retry should identify areas where relevant >> support is needed, then scoped. >> >> >> To discuss, new feature(s) currently being worked on: >> - VM Scale Set support is currently being worked on. I’ve asked Julio >> Colon to open an issue on this. As noted in another thread, this is a >> Provider-only API layer as the higher level generalization doesn’t exist. >> Should this work be included as part of this promotion? If he can’t finish >> the PR this week, it might be a couple of weeks out. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks >> -jim spring >> >> >> >> On September 6, 2017 at 8:49:08 AM, Jim Spring (jmspr...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> Ignasi - >> >> A couple of the open issues listed are being worked on. I will know a bit >> more tomorrow about the status/timing on those tomorrow after a couple of >> meetings. I’ll also take a look at a couple of the issues where Duncan has >> a potential fix/etc. and comment. >> >> -jim >> >> On September 5, 2017 at 1:55:31 AM, Ignasi Barrera (n...@apache.org) wrote: >> >> Regarding the promotion of the ARM provider (I'd pretty much like that >> to happen too), should we fix first any of the open issues? >> https://s.apache.org/76Fq >> >> On 5 September 2017 at 09:49, Jim Spring <jmspr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Andrea - >> > >> > Just to clarify re: azure-arm — promotion from jclouds-labs to jclouds as >> a >> > non-labs provider? That would be excellent and I’m willing to contribute >> > the time to make sure that happens. As in another thread - there is some >> > new work going on, but it’s new features. I corrected some issues I saw >> > re: Oauth after some refactoring. >> > >> > Let me know how I can help. >> > >> > I’m for this “promotion” and new release. >> > >> > -jim >> > >> > >> > On September 5, 2017 at 12:31:25 AM, Andrea Turli (andrea.tu...@gmail.com) >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi! >> > >> > It's been about two months since jclouds 2.0.2 and I'd like to propose >> (and >> > volunteer) to release 2.1.0. >> > >> > In fact I don't think 2.0.3 is what we want now, but open to suggestions. >> > >> > There are many improvements to Azure ARM which I think it is now mature >> > enough to be promoted and several bug fixes and improvements to other >> > providers that will be for sure useful for users. >> > >> > What do you guys think? >> > >> > Best, >> > Andrea > > -- > Andrew Gaul > http://gaul.org/
